So, kool-aid drinkers…. [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : So, kool-aid drinkers….


G29Reload
12-18-2012, 20:31
You wanted Obama but the one thing that might have flipped you was the gun issue, except you figgered, hey, see, he didn't really do anything bad, it was all hype and he even gave us Nat'l Parks! He won't do a damn thing.

Except when he will. And doesn't have to run again.

Romney: Commits to Uncle Ted and everyone, no new laws.

Obama (via Holder): Love to reinstate the AWB, but just not practical (yet)

So, he's in, nice and safe, election over.

Congrats, suckers. We ALL get to take a bite. So, too bad if you adopted a taste for guns, you don't get an exemption if he manages to get something thru.

And we better stop it there, because all we need is one Justice to go full-on retard (though it would take a bit to overturn precedent) and we'll have it jammed down our throat.

We tried to warn you. Now you have to sweat bullets with the rest of us.

cowboy1964
12-18-2012, 21:52
After this event I'm not sure even Romney would not sign a new AWB, depending on what's in it.

Feinstein has been working on her "perfected" AWB for a year. Anyone with half a brain knew the Dums would be going after guns in O's second term.

jlavallee
12-18-2012, 22:08
Romney signed one before. He is about as reliable as that POS Bohner, the only thing you can count on is that he has no conviction.

We could have had a real pro Constitution man like Paul but the retards that make up the party line voters don't want freedom, they just want the freedoms they like while forcing their views on others. We knew 2A was a liberal hot point, so what? When I see most of the GOP, they're just a vile anyway.

The Machinist
12-18-2012, 22:15
Yeah, Romney was a real fan of the second amendment, and AR15 rifles in particular. :upeyes:

TheExplorer
12-18-2012, 22:15
After this event I'm not sure even Romney would not sign a new AWB, depending on what's in it.

Feinstein has been working on her "perfected" AWB for a year. Anyone with half a brain knew the Dums would be going after guns in O's second term.

:agree::goodpost:

LASTRESORT20
12-18-2012, 22:17
~ "We tried to warn you" ~

:agree:

LASTRESORT20
12-18-2012, 22:21
After this event I'm not sure even Romney would not sign a new AWB, depending on what's in it.

Feinstein has been working on her "perfected" AWB for a year. Anyone with half a brain knew the Dums would be going after guns in O's second term.


After all thats happened....I would rather have Romney & his crew in office instead of berry and "his".

Think about it....

countrygun
12-18-2012, 22:43
Romney signed one before. He is about as reliable as that POS Bohner, the only thing you can count on is that he has no conviction.

We could have had a real pro Constitution man like Paul but the retards that make up the party line voters don't want freedom, they just want the freedoms they like while forcing their views on others. We knew 2A was a liberal hot point, so what? When I see most of the GOP, they're just a vile anyway.

Ron Paul, the guy that couldn't pull enough votes from the Dems to help Romney, was sure going to pull them with an "R" next to his name. You think a lot of Obama's base would have swung over to an "individual responsibility for your life' candidate? You are delusional

Couple that with the fact that, Romney's signing the bill as the Governor was the only way he could get to amend it in favor of gun owners BECAUSE THE LEGISLATURE HAD A VETO PROOF MAJORITY, has been explained to you many time and you fail to grasp iit. I am not surprised you Rongoloids chased voters away from the Libertarian party in droves. The lack of mental acuity in a (supposed) adult that you display is scary.

FLIPPER 348
12-18-2012, 22:51
After this event I'm not sure even Romney would not sign a new AWB, depending on what's in it.

.



this

Our guns are in no greater danger because Mittens lost.

KCHORNS
12-18-2012, 22:58
Romney signed one before. He is about as reliable as that POS Bohner, the only thing you can count on is that he has no conviction.

We could have had a real pro Constitution man like Paul but the retards that make up the party line voters don't want freedom, they just want the freedoms they like while forcing their views on others. We knew 2A was a liberal hot point, so what? When I see most of the GOP, they're just a vile anyway.
agreed.

stevelyn
12-18-2012, 23:51
After this event I'm not sure even Romney would not sign a new AWB, depending on what's in it.

Feinstein has been working on her "perfected" AWB for a year. Anyone with half a brain knew the Dums would be going after guns in O's second term.


If you don't think our enemies haven't learned anything from the last AWB, you are sadly mistake, stupid or just a liar working for the enemy camp.

Diane Feinswine was on one of the Sunday morning talking head news shows speaking about how she had been working on a new AWB bill for over the last year, waiting for the right time to file it.

Now you have to ask your self what was the right time to file in her mind? Contingent on Obama's reelection? Or perhaps a deep enough pool of blood to splash and dance around in? In either case, she has gotten her "right time" in spades and the battle is going to get ugly.

You can also bet that she has probably enlisted the help of traitorous advisors who actually know guns to help her out on the wording and you can also bet that magazines and cosmetic features aren't going to be the only thing affected by her proposed bill. It will also address function which was what the enemy camp was later disappointed about over the original bill when it finally went into effect.

And to all you treasonous Fudds out there that are ready to throw us under the bus, just remember that your precious bolt-action hunting rifles were the assault weapons of their day and that every advancement ever made in firearms technology was motivated by military need and application.

So you need to decide now whether you are going to stand with us to defend all gun rights or you are going to let us twist in the breeze. Because you can bet your ass that as soon as the precedent has been set for a ban on one class of firearms, they'll come after yours.

ked
12-19-2012, 00:40
this

Our guns are in no greater danger because Mittens lost.

NO, our guns are in the same danger as if Romney had won.

ked

G29Reload
12-19-2012, 02:14
this

Our guns are in no greater danger because Mittens lost.

Except they are.

Romney committed that he wouldn't touch em.

Holder said an AWB was still desirable. Obama had it in his plans all along.

Romney sounded like a guy who had learned his lesson.

certifiedfunds
12-19-2012, 02:15
this

Our guns are in no greater danger because Mittens lost.

Keep trying to convince yourself that you aren't part of the problem here.

G29Reload
12-19-2012, 02:16
Diane Feinswine was on one of the Sunday morning talking head news shows speaking about how she had been working on a new AWB bill for over the last year, waiting for the right time to file it.

She's probably never stopped working on it since she started it. Probably been assembling her wish list since the first one sunsetted.


Now you have to ask your self what was the right time to file in her mind? Contingent on Obama's reelection? Or perhaps a deep enough pool of blood to splash and dance around in? In either case, she has gotten her "right time" in spades and the battle is going to get ugly.

She still can't sign it into law herself.

beforeobamabans
12-19-2012, 02:32
I was one of the legions who bought their first handgun in the wake of the 2008 election. Joined GT, bought a range membership, a bunch of ammo, then more Glocks. I chose my screen name as a statement of why I got involved, hoping, trusting that it would never come to that. I am as saddened by this rush to lynch gun rights as I am over the tragedy in Newtown. Pretzel Logic reigns. The American people truly have become sheeple, stampeding in whatever direction the wind (and MSM) blows. It is truly a sad time for this country. Once liberty is given up, it is very, very difficult to get it back.

beforeobamabans
12-19-2012, 02:53
Feinstein has been working on her "perfected" AWB for a year. Anyone with half a brain knew the Dums would be going after guns in O's second term.
The truly ominous new feature of her perfected bill is the "prospective" ownership ban. This means any outlawed equipment grandfathered in for prior owners will be illegal for anyone else to own. As those owners die off, that equipment will be illegal for heirs to inherit or estate sales to liquidate. Your stuff will be confiscated when you die. In time, there will be a universal ban. And of course, this means no sunset provision in this AWB.

427
12-19-2012, 02:58
Perhaps some gun-owning Obama voters are having a "What have I done" moment.http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-4zQu5M6y1_c/UDptR0xOjQI/AAAAAAAAALA/16bFZmLofz4/s1600/WHAT+HAVE+I+DONE%253F.png

427
12-19-2012, 03:04
this

Our guns are in no greater danger because Mittens lost.

So says the guy who claimed Obama wouldn't pass any gun legislation in his second term and claimed any talk of it, was the "sky is falling" rhetoric. :whistling:

callihan_44
12-19-2012, 06:08
ok, so we go down the road of banning certain guns-mag capacities...we have 4 more years of this administration...what happens after the next school shooting? wasnt the coming ban supposed to cure this ill? We all know those who are hell bent on doing this will not be stopped by ANY legislation. I fear democrat rule will lead to gun control we have never seen before, also if your post military like me you better keep a tight lip with the talk of mental illness issues and the ability to obtain a weapon. Get ready for a psych eval before you can purchase...

walt cowan
12-19-2012, 08:02
ok. are we all ready to destroy the current rnc and rebuild it anew?

FLIPPER 348
12-19-2012, 08:23
Keep trying to convince yourself that you aren't part of the problem here.



Keep trying to convince yourself that after 5-7 year old kids were murdered our firearms would be in any less danger if Obama had lost.

Gunhaver
12-19-2012, 08:32
You wanted Obama but the one thing that might have flipped you was the gun issue, except you figgered, hey, see, he didn't really do anything bad, it was all hype and he even gave us Nat'l Parks! He won't do a damn thing.

Except when he will. And doesn't have to run again.

Romney: Commits to Uncle Ted and everyone, no new laws.

Obama (via Holder): Love to reinstate the AWB, but just not practical (yet)

So, he's in, nice and safe, election over.

Congrats, suckers. We ALL get to take a bite. So, too bad if you adopted a taste for guns, you don't get an exemption if he manages to get something thru.

And we better stop it there, because all we need is one Justice to go full-on retard (though it would take a bit to overturn precedent) and we'll have it jammed down our throat.

We tried to warn you. Now you have to sweat bullets with the rest of us.

Wow. Somebody is really happy about being right about this. Must ease a bit the sting of being so monumentally embarrassingly WRONG about Romney winning the election. You were about the most outspoken member here if I recall about Mitten's imminent victory.

Congratulations blind squirrel. Here's your nut.




But some of us aren't quite so upset. I mean, the Republicans went so bat crap crazy with this election what with all the talk of god and rape and porn and gays and abortion and Satan and what-not that they turned off a huge portion of potential supporters. The gun banning desires of Obama were well known and nothing short of an insane opposing party (Tax evasion flavored! Now with 100% more magic undies and talking salamanders!) could have ensured his reelection. Well, that's exactly what we got. Most of America looked at that silly mess like :shocked: and said to themselves... "Um, yeah. I'm OK with 4 more years of the black guy."

I'm sure you're just fine with ignoring those facts though. Much easier to just call everyone stupid.

certifiedfunds
12-19-2012, 08:43
Keep trying to convince yourself that after 5-7 year old kids were murdered our firearms would be in any less danger if Obama had lost.

You are speculating. What we know for certain is that your president and your legislators WANT this bill and it is being drafted to your president's specifications.

certifiedfunds
12-19-2012, 08:47
Wow. Somebody is really happy about being right about this. Must ease a bit the sting of being so monumentally embarrassingly WRONG about Romney winning the election. You were about the most outspoken member here if I recall about Mitten's imminent victory.

Congratulations blind squirrel. Here's your nut.




But some of us aren't quite so upset. I mean, the Republicans went so bat crap crazy with this election what with all the talk of god and rape and porn and gays and abortion and Satan and what-not that they turned off a huge portion of potential supporters. The gun banning desires of Obama were well known and nothing short of an insane opposing party (Tax evasion flavored! Now with 100% more magic undies and talking salamanders!) could have ensured his reelection. Well, that's exactly what we got. Most of America looked at that silly mess like :shocked: and said to themselves... "Um, yeah. I'm OK with 4 more years of the black guy."

I'm sure you're just fine with ignoring those facts though. Much easier to just call everyone stupid.

Rejoice in the fact that you chose sodomy and dead fetuses over your gun rights.

FLIPPER 348
12-19-2012, 08:53
ok. are we all ready to destroy the current rnc and rebuild it anew?



That would be a good idea. Remember, you need the votes Hispanics and women to win.

FLIPPER 348
12-19-2012, 08:55
Wow. Somebody is really happy about being right about this. Must ease a bit the sting of being so monumentally embarrassingly WRONG about Romney winning the election. You were about the most outspoken member here if I recall about Mitten's imminent victory.


.


3 & 1/2 years from now he will again be believing all the crap on Fox News and sucking up poll after poll of meaningless data. And he will not be alone.

certifiedfunds
12-19-2012, 09:06
3 & 1/2 years from now he will again be believing all the crap on Fox News and sucking up poll after poll of meaningless data. And he will not be alone.

And thanks to your president he won't be able to buy an AR or a 30 round mag at any price.

series1811
12-19-2012, 10:24
I just wish the Obama supporters would quit whining. They got what they wanted.

walt cowan
12-19-2012, 11:07
That would be a good idea. Remember, you need the votes Hispanics and women to win.

how's that go? doing the same thing over and...........:yawn:

G29Reload
12-19-2012, 11:32
The truly ominous new feature of her perfected bill is the "prospective" ownership ban. This means any outlawed equipment grandfathered in for prior owners will be illegal for anyone else to own. As those owners die off, that equipment will be illegal for heirs to inherit or estate sales to liquidate. Your stuff will be confiscated when you die. In time, there will be a universal ban. And of course, this means no sunset provision in this AWB.

Except for one fortunate thing: we have no registry to track long guns. Anything you have you could still possess, have sold a week after you bought it, 3 years after you bought it, gifted to someone....no one has a clue who has what. I would venture no one tell them either. Priv sales back and forth will continue unabated.

G29Reload
12-19-2012, 11:38
Wow. Somebody is really happy about being right about this. Must ease a bit the sting of being so monumentally embarrassingly WRONG about Romney winning the election. You were about the most outspoken member here if I recall about Mitten's imminent victory.

Congratulations blind squirrel. Here's your nut.




But some of us aren't quite so upset. I mean, the Republicans went so bat crap crazy with this election what with all the talk of god and rape and porn and gays and abortion and Satan and what-not that they turned off a huge portion of potential supporters. The gun banning desires of Obama were well known and nothing short of an insane opposing party (Tax evasion flavored! Now with 100% more magic undies and talking salamanders!) could have ensured his reelection. Well, that's exactly what we got. Most of America looked at that silly mess like :shocked: and said to themselves... "Um, yeah. I'm OK with 4 more years of the black guy."

I'm sure you're just fine with ignoring those facts though. Much easier to just call everyone stupid.


Oh you mean all the.lies posited by your phony media hacks, and you swallowed that as naively as obama.

Rejoice in opposing a burglar with sofa pillows. Sucker.

marchboom
12-19-2012, 11:54
this

Our guns are in no greater danger because Mittens lost.

You're living in a dream world if you think Romney would be the same as the traitor obama.

And why is Romney even being brought up? The election is over and the traitor won. End of story. Sounds like the liberals want to make Romney the New Bush. Blame him instead of the traitor obama.

Gunhaver
12-19-2012, 12:32
Oh you mean all the.lies posited by your phony media hacks, and you swallowed that as naively as obama.

Rejoice in opposing a burglar with sofa pillows. Sucker.


Soft pillow? I haven't turned my guns in yet. Have you? You must really be paranoid about this. :rofl:

Plus... I'm a machinist and metalwork extraordinaire. They'd have to send the roundup squad my way every 2 weeks to keep me unarmed.

jlavallee
12-19-2012, 12:37
And why is Romney even being brought up? The election is over and the traitor won. End of story. Sounds like the liberals want to make Romney the New Bush. Blame him instead of the traitor obama.

If you haven't figured out by now that Bush was the start of all this with the PATRIOT Act, TSA and associated overreaches then there isn't much point. Obama is everything Bush got away with taken to another statist level.

Wake the hell up and open your eyes to the two party system that ensures only the government wins.

Cavalry Doc
12-19-2012, 12:43
Keep trying to convince yourself that after 5-7 year old kids were murdered our firearms would be in any less danger if Obama had lost.

Mittens in his first term would have been less likely to go the ban route than Barry in his second.

You knew that, and you voted for Barry anyway. Keep trying to convince yourself you have no blame in this, it's amusing.

Gunhaver
12-19-2012, 12:46
You're living in a dream world if you think Romney would be the same as the traitor obama.

And why is Romney even being brought up? The election is over and the traitor won. End of story. Sounds like the liberals want to make Romney the New Bush. Blame him instead of the traitor obama.

I'll do you one better. I blame the majority of the republican party for alienating so many people with so much insanity about gays, abor... aw hell, you know the drill by now, that most people on the left and on the fence can't stomach anything they say anymore even when they're correct.

If you care about your gun rights so much then maybe you all should have thought of that before you took up the crusade on all these other loosing issues as if you were some kind of untouchable majority or something.

If your side had had a long record of opposing the war on drugs BECAUSE it actually goes along with your small government BS that few of you really believe, if your side had never opposed gay marriage BECAUSE it goes against your small government BS that few of you actually believe to even acknowledge the government should play a role in marriage, if your side had a long record of actually giving a **** about anybody but yourselves then you'd have unbeatable support and the gun banners would be bleating about your having gotten the NFA repealed right now.

But you can't do that. You can't be the slightest bit inclusive of people that don't fall right in line with your ideologies and so your party, the only party that defends our gun rights, moves further and further towards irrelevancy.

Yeah, thanks a bunch for that. :upeyes:

So tell me, what pisses you off more right now, the marrying gays, the porn websites, the legalized weed, the birth control ? Or is it the imminent threat to your gun rights?

Boy oh boy. I wish I was as left as some of you think I am so I could really rub it in.

Gunhaver
12-19-2012, 12:57
If you haven't figured out by now that Bush was the start of all this with the PATRIOT Act, TSA and associated overreaches then there isn't much point. Obama is everything Bush got away with taken to another statist level.

Wake the hell up and open your eyes to the two party system that ensures only the government wins.

It boggles the mind how much Bush really is to blame for. Stereotypes don't happen in a vacuum after all.

series1811
12-19-2012, 13:06
Liberals.

Please. Quit. Whining.

You got what you wanted.

Gunhaver
12-19-2012, 13:52
Rejoice in the fact that you chose sodomy and dead fetuses over your gun rights.

Funny you mention abortion because I just came around on that this morning.

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1458626

Not that you're the type to care what I agree with you on. You only care what I disagree with you on.

And sodomy? Not my thing even with the ladies but really, wouldn't it be worth it to lay off the gays if it would garner enough support for you to keep your guns? Wouldn't it be worth it for your party to collectively tell anyone that complained about birth control and rape and god in schools and porn websites (almost threw pot in there but I can remember what we do agree on) to FOAD when they associated themselves with your party?

Or is it really better to tow the party line on all those losing issues until all that stuff becomes a reality anyways right along with massive gun bans? You choose. Guns and all that other stuff or no guns and all that other stuff. Those are your choices.

whoflungdo
12-19-2012, 14:04
Soft pillow? I haven't turned my guns in yet. Have you? You must really be paranoid about this. :rofl:

Plus... I'm a machinist and metalwork extraordinaire. They'd have to send the roundup squad my way every 2 weeks to keep me unarmed.


Great. I hear the metal shop in prison is the place to be.

GAFinch
12-19-2012, 15:06
Except for one fortunate thing: we have no registry to track long guns. Anything you have you could still possess, have sold a week after you bought it, 3 years after you bought it, gifted to someone....no one has a clue who has what. I would venture no one tell them either. Priv sales back and forth will continue unabated.

Unless the only way for them to follow this bill and keep track of original ownership is for owners to register their guns. Registration does usually precede confiscation.

GAFinch
12-19-2012, 15:08
We could have had a real pro Constitution man like Paul but the retards that make up the party line voters don't want freedom, they just want the freedoms they like while forcing their views on others. We knew 2A was a liberal hot point, so what? When I see most of the GOP, they're just a vile anyway.

The guy who wanted to repeal the law banning progressives from suing gun companies out of existence?

G29Reload
12-20-2012, 02:29
Soft pillow? I haven't turned my guns in yet. Have you? You must really be paranoid about this. :rofl:

No, sofa pillows..about what youd be left with if your boy has his way.

Havent turned in anything and never will.

Paranoid? You mean like the record number of buyers in the past week who suddenly, for no reason whatsoever decided to buy? Tell me another.:upeyes:

Blast
12-20-2012, 03:30
https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/6899884544/h33F169F0/

nursetim
12-20-2012, 04:07
I don't like HWSNBN, but he hasn't done anything yet. I'll be the first to point fingers when he does. But until then, keep your own counsel.

Gunhaver
12-20-2012, 08:01
Havent turned in anything and never will.



Are you saying that if your guns were made illegal you wouldn't turn them in? You'd (gasp!) BREAK THE LAW???

Why? Because you don't feel that that law is just? Join the club you hypocrite. :yawn:

countrygun
12-20-2012, 08:20
Are you saying that if your guns were made illegal you wouldn't turn them in? You'd (gasp!) BREAK THE LAW???

Why? Because you don't feel that that law is just? Join the club you hypocrite. :yawn:

It may have to do with the fact that the right to keep and bear arms was important enough for the founders to include in the Bill of Rights. any law that infringes of that can be considered Null and void.


Show me the word "Marijuana' in the Constitution or The Bill of Rights.

Seems to me that would have been a States rights issue to the Founders, so do you live in Washington or Colorado, or do you live in a State that exercised it's rights in a way you don't agree with?

whoflungdo
12-20-2012, 08:24
I don't like HWSNBN, but he hasn't done anything yet. I'll be the first to point fingers when he does. But until then, keep your own counsel.

Ummm What?

jlavallee
12-20-2012, 08:32
Show me the word "Marijuana' in the Constitution or The Bill of Rights.


You know that the Constitution doesn't tell the government what it can't do but what it can right?

HexHead
12-20-2012, 08:46
Romney signed one before.

I thought so too, until I actually read the bill he signed. It wasn't an AWB by any stretch. It was actually a good bill, with a very misleading title.

You should check it out.

series1811
12-20-2012, 09:25
I thought so too, until I actually read the bill he signed. It wasn't an AWB by any stretch. It was actually a good bill, with a very misleading title.

You should check it out.

Lots of so called liberal gun owners, should have actually read that bill. Not that it would have made any difference.

Gunhaver
12-20-2012, 09:49
It may have to do with the fact that the right to keep and bear arms was important enough for the founders to include in the Bill of Rights. any law that infringes of that can be considered Null and void.


Show me the word "Marijuana' in the Constitution or The Bill of Rights.

Seems to me that would have been a States rights issue to the Founders, so do you live in Washington or Colorado, or do you live in a State that exercised it's rights in a way you don't agree with?

Show me the word "tomato" or "spruce" in the constitution or bill of rights. Really? You're coming at us with that lame ass argument? The thing is that there was no reason to think marajuana would ever be an issue at that time. It was as important to them as corn or lumber. It wasn't until 1937 that people started making a stink about it and for very, very stupid reasons.

Gunhaver
12-20-2012, 09:57
Paranoid? You mean like the record number of buyers in the past week who suddenly, for no reason whatsoever decided to buy? Tell me another.:upeyes:

Went to Walmart 2 days ago. 100 round boxes of WWB .40 are $33 each right now. I've been buying a lot of those and $36 is the most I've paid. $28 is the cheapest I've paid. I bought 2 of them and left 7 for the others. They're also carrying a decent little Nebo rail light that I'm fairly impressed with for $40. Had 2 whole pegs full of them. And there hasn't been a change in their long gun selection in months, same stuff sitting there as far as I can tell. Seems like business as usual around here. I guess I just live in a No-Pantywad-Zone. Lucky me.

WT
12-20-2012, 10:08
Gunhaver - what you say is very interesting.

What is sad is that the Republicans don't realize they have already LOST the 2016 elections.

I'm an old, white man who voted for Nixon. I should have stop voting back then.

G29Reload
12-20-2012, 10:18
Are you saying that if your guns were made illegal you wouldn't turn them in? You'd (gasp!) BREAK THE LAW???

Why? Because you don't feel that that law is just? Join the club you hypocrite. :yawn:

No, because such a law would be illegal itself, being unconstitutional. Nice try.

Gundude
12-20-2012, 10:24
Ron Paul, the guy that couldn't pull enough votes from the Dems to help Romney, was sure going to pull them with an "R" next to his name. You think a lot of Obama's base would have swung over to an "individual responsibility for your life' candidate? You are delusional

Couple that with the fact that, Romney's signing the bill as the Governor was the only way he could get to amend it in favor of gun owners BECAUSE THE LEGISLATURE HAD A VETO PROOF MAJORITY, has been explained to you many time and you fail to grasp iit. I am not surprised you Rongoloids chased voters away from the Libertarian party in droves. The lack of mental acuity in a (supposed) adult that you display is scary.You really can delude yourself into believing anything, can't you? Did that election go the way you were so sure it would? How can you have been so wrong? Is it possible you're also wrong about Romney's friendliness towards gun owners?

And the $64,000 question: If he only signed that AWB because of the veto proof majority, what made him say "Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts. These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people"?

Was that a requirement for the bill to become legal? What was his angle? How did that statement help gun owners? Why did he volunteer that statement?

Those that are saying "told ya so" now are still just bitter about the election. Believing gun rights would be any safer right now with Romney at the helm is pure delusion.

G29Reload
12-20-2012, 10:24
Show me the word "tomato" or "spruce" in the constitution or bill of rights. Really? You're coming at us with that lame ass argument? .

There are no laws against tomatoes or spruce. But of course a xcommunist like yourself could be understood to reveal his distorted thinking in this crippled reasoning. In the old soviet union, everything was illegal, unless specifically approved.

In our country everything is legal unless specifically prohibited by a constitutionally sound law.

So your argument logic fails again. Welcome to america, we can see youre new here.

G29Reload
12-20-2012, 10:27
Went to Walmart 2 days ago. 100 round boxes of WWB .40 are $33 each right now. I've been buying a lot of those and $36 is the most I've paid. $28 is the cheapest I've paid. I bought 2 of them and left 7 for the others. They're also carrying a decent little Nebo rail light that I'm fairly impressed with for $40. Had 2 whole pegs full of them. And there hasn't been a change in their long gun selection in months, same stuff sitting there as far as I can tell. Seems like business as usual around here. I guess I just live in a No-Pantywad-Zone. Lucky me.

Multiple states are now reporting record level of background checks according to the wire services.

G29Reload
12-20-2012, 10:29
It boggles the mind how much Bush really is to blame for. Stereotypes don't happen in a vacuum after all.
It boggles the mind how.many idiots believe the myths as real. The old "repeat the lie often enough" destroyed the vaccuum an administration ago.

Gunhaver
12-20-2012, 12:26
No, because such a law would be illegal itself, being unconstitutional. Nice try.

So now you decide what's unconstitutional? How convenient that you can just say any law you don't like isn't constitutional. That's the SCOTUS's job, not yours.

The feds had to scrape together a very lame ass "interpretation" of the interstate commerce clause to justifying making MJ illegal. Care to tell me how that can rationally apply to something I can grow in "my mom's basement" but not to something I can machine out in "my mom's basement" (she let's me have a pretty sweet setup down here and I'm expecting a new Tormach 1100 for Christmas)?

Nope. You like guns. You don't like pot. Simple as that. Get over yourself. Or not. It doesn't matter either way what you think.

Gunhaver
12-20-2012, 12:31
Multiple states are now reporting record level of background checks according to the wire services.

Awesome. That's a good thing. Just saying that I ain't seeing it up here in northern Iowa. Things are pretty blue up this way.

whoflungdo
12-20-2012, 12:46
So now you decide what's unconstitutional? How convenient that you can just say any law you don't like isn't constitutional. That's the SCOTUS's job, not yours.

The feds had to scrape together a very lame ass "interpretation" of the interstate commerce clause to justifying making MJ illegal. Care to tell me how that can rationally apply to something I can grow in "my mom's basement" but not to something I can machine out in "my mom's basement" (she let's me have a pretty sweet setup down here and I'm expecting a new Tormach 1100 for Christmas)?

Nope. You like guns. You don't like pot. Simple as that. Get over yourself. Or not. It doesn't matter either way what you think.

Your continued posts would indicate otherwise.

G29Reload
12-20-2012, 14:07
So now you decide what's unconstitutional? How convenient that you can just say any law you don't like isn't constitutional. That's the SCOTUS's job, not yours.

Duh. And the scotus has decided thats unconstitutional since youre not paying attention. But youre high or.you would know that.


The feds had to scrape together a very lame ass "interpretation" of the interstate commerce clause to justifying making MJ illegal. Care to tell me how that can rationally apply to something I can grow in "my mom's basement" but not to something I can machine out in "my mom's basement" (she let's me have a pretty sweet setup down here and I'm expecting a new Tormach 1100 for Christmas)?

Nope. You like guns. You don't like pot. Simple as that. Get over yourself. Or not. It doesn't matter either way what you think.

Im not even going to try to sort the illogic of your non sequitor.

Have no idea what a tormach is.

Like guns, neutral on pot, so again youre talking out of.your hat. But youre high so im not expecting much.

countrygun
12-20-2012, 15:02
Show me the word "tomato" or "spruce" in the constitution or bill of rights. Really? You're coming at us with that lame ass argument? The thing is that there was no reason to think marajuana would ever be an issue at that time. It was as important to them as corn or lumber. It wasn't until 1937 that people started making a stink about it and for very, very stupid reasons.

Liquor and tobacco were important back then, but they were not important enough to be protected by the BOR, regulation was left up to the States. The BOR and the Constitution were designed for the protection and perpetuation of the Republic by protecting the individual rights that were key to a cohesive society, weed didn't make the list.

Oh, and speaking of plants, there are several restrictions on them I my State, transporting hay that may contain tansy ragwort from the west of the state to the east is a no-no.

Do you remember a state called "California" the used to check vehicles at the borders to make sure no fruit or produce was being brought in. the jobs are still there and they are now just vestigial political rewards. But for years plants were regulated in California, ain't that a hoot. BTW SCOTUS had no problem with California banning non-native grown grapefruit.

You fail all over yourself.

Bren
12-20-2012, 15:19
And we better stop it there, because all we need is one Justice to go full-on retard (though it would take a bit to overturn precedent) and we'll have it jammed down our throat.


I have mentioned this before - I'm not sure what GTers think is the supposed difficulty or overturning precedent. The Supreme Court can choose a new second amendment case from any part of the country, any time the want and all it takes to overrule Heller and McDonald is a vote and writing it down. It really is that simple for them to rule that the 2nd Amendment is not your right and only guarantees that the states can form a state militia, if they want. The only hold-up would really be a few months of waiting for the parties to file briefs and maybe have an oral argument.

Bren
12-20-2012, 15:22
Mittens in his first term would have been less likely to go the ban route than Barry in his second.

You knew that, and you voted for Barry anyway. Keep trying to convince yourself you have no blame in this, it's amusing.

As I have made the point several times - even OBAMA in his first term was not as dangerous as Obama in his 2nd term. Those who tried to argue that Romney was just as liberal, besides not even believing that themselves, had to overlook the dfference between any first and second term president.

countrygun
12-20-2012, 15:42
As I have made the point several times - even OBAMA in his first term was not as dangerous as Obama in his 2nd term. Those who tried to argue that Romney was just as liberal, besides not even believing that themselves, had to overlook the dfference between any first and second term president.

remember Obama's own words to the Russians. The election is over he has more "Flexibility"

whoflungdo
12-20-2012, 15:51
remember Obama's own words to the Russians. The election is over he has more "Flexibility"


Flexibility is a requirement for the "Lean Forward" crowd.

certifiedfunds
12-20-2012, 15:55
Liquor and tobacco were important back then, but they were not important enough to be protected by the BOR, regulation was left up to the States. The BOR and the Constitution were designed for the protection and perpetuation of the Republic by protecting the individual rights that were key to a cohesive society, weed didn't make the list.



"Weed didn't make the list" - I don't understand this statement. What list?

Liquor and tobacco are certainly protected by the BOR in the 9th and 10th Amendments. So is "weed".

And I'm not sure where you get your understanding of the purpose of the Constitution but its primary purpose wasn't that stuff you posted up there, its primary purpose was to restrain the federal government that was created by the states. The states didn't want this new federal government meddling in their affairs to any significant extent. Rather, they delegated it certain very limited powers and duties and left the rest up to themselves and their people.

But you're correct. Weed didn't make that list which means the federal government has no authority to regulate it other than to make certain it trades freely amongst the states and unless it is imported, which the fed does have clear authority over.

certifiedfunds
12-20-2012, 15:56
As I have made the point several times - even OBAMA in his first term was not as dangerous as Obama in his 2nd term. Those who tried to argue that Romney was just as liberal, besides not even believing that themselves, had to overlook the dfference between any first and second term president.

He's still constrained by his slim margin in the Senate and the looming mid term elections.

However, as the Obamacare fiasco proved he also knows that Americans have a very short memory.

countrygun
12-20-2012, 16:34
"Weed didn't make the list" - I don't understand this statement. What list?

Liquor and tobacco are certainly protected by the BOR in the 9th and 10th Amendments. So is "weed".

And I'm not sure where you get your understanding of the purpose of the Constitution but its primary purpose wasn't that stuff you posted up there, its primary purpose was to restrain the federal government that was created by the states. The states didn't want this new federal government meddling in their affairs to any significant extent. Rather, they delegated it certain very limited powers and duties and left the rest up to themselves and their people.

But you're correct. Weed didn't make that list which means the federal government has no authority to regulate it other than to make certain it trades freely amongst the states and unless it is imported, which the fed does have clear authority over.

And you are showing you don't understand the argument, and I suspected as much

The Constitution does not give you the right to use Marijuana if your state outlaws it. it is not the Federal governments job to make sure it "trades fairly" between states if a State outlaws it.

that is what a "states rights Issue" is all about. It is a two edged sword.

certifiedfunds
12-20-2012, 16:49
And you are showing you don't understand the argument, and I suspected as much

The Constitution does not give you the right to use Marijuana if your state outlaws it. it is not the Federal governments job to make sure it "trades fairly" between states if a State outlaws it.

that is what a "states rights Issue" is all about. It is a two edged sword.

First of all, the Constitution doesn't give anyone rights. It merely affirms them.

Secondly, I know precisely what the 9th and 10th amendment mean and no they do not give anyone the right to use MJ or eat tomatoes for that matter if their state prohibits it. What it does mean is that the fedgov has no legitimate authority to prohibit the people of Colorado or any state from growing, trading or consuming marijuana or whiskey or corn.

However the proper application of the commerce clause is there to ensure that if the people of two states want to trade marijuana that they can't place import tariffs and the like.

Now, since you're so well versed in the COTUS, tell me where you find authority for your beloved social security.

EOS
12-20-2012, 16:54
Except they are.

Romney committed that he wouldn't touch em.

Holder said an AWB was still desirable. Obama had it in his plans all along.

Romney sounded like a guy who had learned his lesson.

rrrright...........because a known liar and flip flopper wouldnt act pro gun to pander to his voting base.:whistling: What will it take for you neocons to realize that the GOP is as hostile to our liberty as the Commiecrats. Boners "fiscal cliff" tax hikes sure as hell aint doing it.

countrygun
12-20-2012, 17:05
First of all, the Constitution doesn't give anyone rights. It merely affirms them.

Secondly, I know precisely what the 9th and 10th amendment mean and no they do not give anyone the right to use MJ or eat tomatoes for that matter if their state prohibits it. What it does mean is that the fedgov has no legitimate authority to prohibit the people of Colorado or any state from growing, trading or consuming marijuana or whiskey or corn.

However the proper application of the commerce clause is there to ensure that if the people of two states want to trade marijuana that they can't place import tariffs and the like.

Now, since you're so well versed in the COTUS, tell me where you find authority for your beloved social security.

You danced quite well around your false statement. You are also dancing around the fact that the Federal Government cannot prevent a State from outlawing or restricting a plant or alcohol either.

And you are again trying to deflect to the Social Security issue. which doesn't affect me personally, but sure puts you panties in a wad. just because I think the people who were forced to put money into it, under the promise of getting it back out, should be able to get it back out.
As I recall your attitude is "tough ****." It's gone."

Very odd for a person who pretends to be a Libertarian, which at one time years ago meant you believed in responsibility, but apparently now it doesn't apply to the society or the political system that squandered that money. that actually sounds quite liberal of you.

certifiedfunds
12-20-2012, 17:16
You really are clueless. I suppose it's hard being a progressive and masquerading as a conservative.

What false statement did I make? That MJ is protected by the BOR? It certainly is. The Constitution restrains the federal government. MJ is protected. Fed has no authority.

As for the SS issue. Yeah I brought it up again because its funny watching you talk about the COTUS and conservative principles while you protect an unconstitutional socialist program.

Responsibility? I have no responsibility to SS recipients. Under current law I have an immoral legal obligation. But I have no responsibility. I've not entered into any contract nor have I assumed any debt. I have no responsibility to pay some old person. It is funny watching your progressive roots show though when you claim I do.

So yeah. Tough ****. It's gone. I didn't take it. I don't owe it.

countrygun
12-20-2012, 17:35
You really are clueless. I suppose it's hard being a progressive and masquerading as a conservative.

What false statement did I make? That MJ is protected by the BOR? It certainly is. The Constitution restrains the federal government. MJ is protected. Fed has no authority.

As for the SS issue. Yeah I brought it up again because its funny watching you talk about the COTUS and conservative principles while you protect an unconstitutional socialist program.

Responsibility? I have no responsibility to SS recipients. Under current law I have an immoral legal obligation. But I have no responsibility. I've not entered into any contract nor have I assumed any debt. I have no responsibility to pay some old person. It is funny watching your progressive roots show though when you claim I do.

So yeah. Tough ****. It's gone. I didn't take it. I don't owe it.


You are almost funny, but not quite. You try to play pseudo-intellectual games in your choice of words to imply things that suit your purpose.

MJ is not Protected". It can still be illegal under state laws it has no more protection that any other plant. It is/should be out of the scope of the Fed to regulate. You chose you words to imply what you want.

certifiedfunds
12-20-2012, 17:43
You are almost funny, but not quite. You try to play pseudo-intellectual games in your choice of words to imply things that suit your purpose.

MJ is not Protected". It can still be illegal under state laws it has no more protection that any other plant. It is/should be out of the scope of the Fed to regulate. You chose you words to imply what you want.

It's clear your reading comprehension is rivaled only by your understanding of the Constitution.

Gunhaver
12-20-2012, 17:45
Duh. And the scotus has decided thats unconstitutional since youre not paying attention. But youre high or.you would know that.



Im not even going to try to sort the illogic of your non sequitor.

Have no idea what a tormach is.

Like guns, neutral on pot, so again youre talking out of.your hat. But youre high so im not expecting much.

Sort the illogic of this non sequitor. I have access to it in a manner that I'm never really in possession. Our government isn't even motivated to bust the people all over weed specific forums growing and smoking it. They got a big grower for 90 years and then backpedaled it to 5 years (post conviction renegotiation, when does that ever happen?) after the public outcry. Weed legal in 2 states need I remind you and Obama really doesn't want to be the black guy that legalized weed but he isn't concerned with it.

What exactly do I have to be afraid of again? Your disapproval? :dunno:

Gunhaver
12-20-2012, 17:53
In the old soviet union, everything was illegal, unless specifically approved.

In our country everything is legal unless specifically prohibited by a constitutionally sound law.

So your argument logic fails again. Welcome to america, we can see youre new here.

They literally had a list with everything on it? :rofl:


Bet you didn't think I'd read that with someone that has several friends from Russia and even has a decent handle on the language. We laughed our butts off together.

countrygun
12-20-2012, 18:11
It's clear your reading comprehension is rivaled only by your understanding of the Constitution.

Still not going to admit that States have the right to ban are you?

what does it matter anyway, with your attitude I don't think you vote anyway.

certifiedfunds
12-20-2012, 18:19
Still not going to admit that States have the right to ban are you?

what does it matter anyway, with your attitude I don't think you vote anyway.

I already did. That was never in question. You can't seem to get your head around what the constitution is. Hell you even defined it wrong abovr.

MJ is constitutionally protected. That has nothing to do with state laws.

Do you agree that federal marihuana laws are unconstitutional?

countrygun
12-20-2012, 19:18
I already did. That was never in question. You can't seem to get your head around what the constitution is. Hell you even defined it wrong abovr.

MJ is constitutionally protected. That has nothing to do with state laws.

Do you agree that federal marihuana laws are unconstitutional?

Your comprehension skills are sadly lacking. Go back and read my posts and you can answer your own question about my belief vis-ŕ-vis federal law.

Now , how about that states right to outlaw thing? are you claiming they don't have that right?

And you don't vote, do you?

certifiedfunds
12-20-2012, 19:37
Your comprehension skills are sadly lacking. Go back and read my posts and you can answer your own question about my belief vis-ŕ-vis federal law.

Now , how about that states right to outlaw thing? are you claiming they don't have that right?

And you don't vote, do you?

Can you freakin read? The Constitution restricts the federal government. Not the states. The states can do as they please. I've never said any differently.

I think the crux of the matter, evidenced by your flawed description of the Constitution up thread, is that you don't understand the founding documents or what the words "constitutionally protected" mean.

As I said originally, marijuana is constitutionally protected by way of the 9th and 10th amendment.

Yes I vote without fail and far more conservatively than you I'm quite certain.

certifiedfunds
12-20-2012, 19:38
Your comprehension skills are sadly lacking. Go back and read my posts and you can answer your own question about my belief vis-ŕ-vis federal law.

Now , how about that states right to outlaw thing? are you claiming they don't have that right?

And you don't vote, do you?

Do you agree that Federal laws prohibiting marijuana are unconstitutional or not. You keep dodging that question.

G29Reload
12-21-2012, 11:30
They literally had a list with everything on it? :rofl:


Bet you didn't think I'd read that with someone that has several friends from Russia and even has a decent handle on the language. We laughed our butts off together.

Yes actually, they did. And im not refering ti modern day russia but the former soviet union. Really dont care what your infant friends think about nowadays.

certifiedfunds
12-21-2012, 11:46
Do you agree that Federal laws prohibiting marijuana are unconstitutional or not. You keep dodging that question.

Still waiting, countrygun.

countrygun
12-21-2012, 14:07
Can you freakin read? The Constitution restricts the federal government. Not the states. The states can do as they please. I've never said any differently.

I think the crux of the matter, evidenced by your flawed description of the Constitution up thread, is that you don't understand the founding documents or what the words "constitutionally protected" mean.

As I said originally, marijuana is constitutionally protected by way of the 9th and 10th amendment.

Yes I vote without fail and far more conservatively than you I'm quite certain.


I was busy with the effects of the storm we had around these parts, I certainly didn't mean to keep you waiting, especially not when you made such a pleasing statement.

You voluntarily participate in the election system. By so doing you affirm the validity of the results (barring fraud) and I am sure if your candidates had won and your legislation had passed, you would expect others to abide by the results. You would consider YOUR candidate to be the proper representative an you would be happy with the results I am sure.

As a result of the election system that you validate by participating in, elected officials have plundered the Social Security system. You pull out a very lame excuse.

Responsibility? I have no responsibility to SS recipients. Under current law I have an immoral legal obligation. But I have no responsibility. I've not entered into any contract nor have I assumed any debt. I have no responsibility to pay some old person. It is funny watching your progressive roots show though when you claim I do.

So yeah. Tough ****. It's gone. I didn't take it. I don't owe it.


It was there .like many laws, before you were born. It was part of the fabric of the society that nurtured an raised you AND THAT YOU VOLUNTARILY PARTICIPATE IN hoping to get your way in the election process.

Officials, elected in a process THAT YOU PARTICIPATE IN, plundered it, but when the bill comes around you say "Hey it's not my fault. I didn't do it".

What you are is a tiny little person sitting of a self generated rule book as you feign some intellectual position when actually, all you are is someone who wants to deny any negative responsibility as a result of being part of a society.

I don't like the SS system and don't need it or intend to use it, my folks didn't like it and didn't need it. At least one set of grandparents were completely against it. (I have no idea of the politics of the other set on the issue) but no matter the personal feelings none of us denied it was a fact and it existed. I don't like what has been done but I don't hide behind the fact I don't like it to self-justify my irresponsibility.

Your self-generated reality and attempting to bully others into agreeing with it as truly sad. Not that you are wrong in principle but you are wrong in reality. We are, unfortunately, responsible for the actions of our elected officials for good or bad, and no Junior , each generation does not get a "reset" button and a fresh slate to decide everything they want and don't want, they are often stuck with the decisions of their forefathers, life sucks sometimes and that is just the fact.

this isn't the menu at a Chinese restaurant you can't look at it and say "I like that result an approve I'll buy it" and then say "I don't like that result, I don't want responsibility for it"

sorry, in a Democratic Republic, you own the whole menu.

Live in your own reality if you like, it doesn't matter, you are ,after all, insignificant.

certifiedfunds
12-21-2012, 14:54
I was busy with the effects of the storm we had around these parts, I certainly didn't mean to keep you waiting, especially not when you made such a pleasing statement.

You voluntarily participate in the election system. By so doing you affirm the validity of the results (barring fraud) and I am sure if your candidates had won and your legislation had passed, you would expect others to abide by the results. You would consider YOUR candidate to be the proper representative an you would be happy with the results I am sure.

As a result of the election system that you validate by participating in, elected officials have plundered the Social Security system. You pull out a very lame excuse.

Responsibility? I have no responsibility to SS recipients. Under current law I have an immoral legal obligation. But I have no responsibility. I've not entered into any contract nor have I assumed any debt. I have no responsibility to pay some old person. It is funny watching your progressive roots show though when you claim I do.

So yeah. Tough ****. It's gone. I didn't take it. I don't owe it.


It was there .like many laws, before you were born. It was part of the fabric of the society that nurtured an raised you AND THAT YOU VOLUNTARILY PARTICIPATE IN hoping to get your way in the election process.

Officials, elected in a process THAT YOU PARTICIPATE IN, plundered it, but when the bill comes around you say "Hey it's not my fault. I didn't do it".

What you are is a tiny little person sitting of a self generated rule book as you feign some intellectual position when actually, all you are is someone who wants to deny any negative responsibility as a result of being part of a society.

I don't like the SS system and don't need it or intend to use it, my folks didn't like it and didn't need it. At least one set of grandparents were completely against it. (I have no idea of the politics of the other set on the issue) but no matter the personal feelings none of us denied it was a fact and it existed. I don't like what has been done but I don't hide behind the fact I don't like it to self-justify my irresponsibility.

Your self-generated reality and attempting to bully others into agreeing with it as truly sad. Not that you are wrong in principle but you are wrong in reality. We are, unfortunately, responsible for the actions of our elected officials for good or bad, and no Junior , each generation does not get a "reset" button and a fresh slate to decide everything they want and don't want, they are often stuck with the decisions of their forefathers, life sucks sometimes and that is just the fact.

this isn't the menu at a Chinese restaurant you can't look at it and say "I like that result an approve I'll buy it" and then say "I don't like that result, I don't want responsibility for it"

sorry, in a Democratic Republic, you own the whole menu.

Live in your own reality if you like, it doesn't matter, you are ,after all, insignificant.

What an utter load of horse **** you just made up in your own head.

You really are one hell of a collectivist.

certifiedfunds
12-21-2012, 14:57
Hey countrygun. Still waiting.

Are federal marijuana laws unconstitutional ?

SDDL-UP
12-22-2012, 00:44
People are so blind!

They've TALKED THEMSELVES INTO SUCH LIES!

The democrats are lapping it up! Lies, lies, lies - "Get on the train... you're going to a camp so we can protect you - it's all going to be okay, your bags will follow on the next train!"

Seriously people! You think you're smarter than everyone else in the room? You think only "simple" people get fooled? You think "your guy" wouldn't lie to you?

The democrats have such a loyalty to approach that of HITLER prior to WWII. Mass hysteria in favor of "their guy".

Fools.

I wrote my congressman to voice my 100% support for our Second Amendment rights - are you getting it done?

countrygun
12-22-2012, 02:37
Hey countrygun. Still waiting.

Are federal marijuana laws unconstitutional ?

I already answered that question in this thread and I have mentioned that fact but since you are deliberately ignoring things you don't like or you have comprehension problems, too bad.

what a putz you are.

The generation that was the first major contributor to Social Security (a legal, even if you don't like it, program) were the ones that fought WWII, they were the ones that developed the space program which brought you such things as Velcro and it was hugely responsible for the development of COMPUTERS, ever hear of those? They also (not algore0 laid the groundwork for the INTERNET, tell me you haven't heard of that please.

No, you are perfectly willing to take the benefits of what has gone before you, all the good stuff, but when there is a down side and a debt. your answer is,

"So yeah. Tough ****. It's gone. I didn't take it. I don't owe it."

You are just self-centered scum trying to mask it in some phony political theory.

certifiedfunds
12-22-2012, 07:56
I already answered that question in this thread and I have mentioned that fact but since you are deliberately ignoring things you don't like or you have comprehension problems, too bad.

what a putz you are.

The generation that was the first major contributor to Social Security (a legal, even if you don't like it, program) were the ones that fought WWII, they were the ones that developed the space program which brought you such things as Velcro and it was hugely responsible for the development of COMPUTERS, ever hear of those? They also (not algore0 laid the groundwork for the INTERNET, tell me you haven't heard of that please.

No, you are perfectly willing to take the benefits of what has gone before you, all the good stuff, but when there is a down side and a debt. your answer is,

"So yeah. Tough ****. It's gone. I didn't take it. I don't owe it."

You are just self-centered scum trying to mask it in some phony political theory.

I have signed no contract. I have borrowed no money. I owe no debt. Socialist collectivist scum want to enslave me, my kids and unborn generations to a debt we haven't agreed to.

Folks like you are thieves. Nothing more. You use the ballot box like a weapon.

Countrygun's view of America is a nation where generations of unborn children will be born into debt to subsidize the richest Americans while they watch their standard of living decrease generation after generation. And, they had better not object. Just get up, go to work and pay taxes. You're raising livestock, countrygun.


Still waiting countrygun -- I've asked you this question at least a half dozen times now and haven't gotten an answer:

Are federal marijuana laws unconstitutional?

jlavallee
12-22-2012, 10:58
No, you are perfectly willing to take the benefits of what has gone before you, all the good stuff, but when there is a down side and a debt. your answer is,

"So yeah. Tough ****. It's gone. I didn't take it. I don't owe it."

You are just self-centered scum trying to mask it in some phony political theory.

Are you freaking insane? That is some hard core statist BS you're spewing there and pretty much inline with the Democrat "nobody gets there alone" garbage. Most folks think it is a good thing to be good to others and hope to leave this world a better place than they found it but nobody owes anyone anything unless they signed a contract. What you're talking about is essentially slavery. Do you honsetly feel like you have some right to sell unborn generations into slavery for crap you wanted?:steamed:

certifiedfunds
12-22-2012, 11:01
Statist filth of the highest order

certifiedfunds
12-23-2012, 00:22
countrygun - have you decided yet?

Are federal marijuana laws unconstitutional or constitutional?

TactiCool
12-23-2012, 01:45
Are federal marijuana laws unconstitutional or constitutional?

I'll throw in my .002, for what it's worth.

Before answering though, I'll refer to the 10A:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

Then I'll take a look at N&P:

The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.


And finally the Commerce Clause:

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;

So, I think Congress could get away with regulating marijuana like it does tobacco, but I don't think they have the power to outright ban it.

countrygun
12-23-2012, 02:09
I have signed no contract. I have borrowed no money. I owe no debt. Socialist collectivist scum want to enslave me, my kids and unborn generations to a debt we haven't agreed to.

Folks like you are thieves. Nothing more. You use the ballot box like a weapon.

Countrygun's view of America is a nation where generations of unborn children will be born into debt to subsidize the richest Americans while they watch their standard of living decrease generation after generation. And, they had better not object. Just get up, go to work and pay taxes. You're raising livestock, countrygun.


Still waiting countrygun -- I've asked you this question at least a half dozen times now and haven't gotten an answer:

Are federal marijuana laws unconstitutional?

You still can't find what I said earlier in this very thread?

You are just too dumb to communicate with

stevelyn
12-23-2012, 05:13
She's probably never stopped working on it since she started it. Probably been assembling her wish list since the first one sunsetted.



She still can't sign it into law herself.


No she can't, but she doesn't have to worry about it not getting signed once it hits the Marxist pig's desk.

certifiedfunds
12-23-2012, 09:46
You still can't find what I said earlier in this very thread?

You are just too dumb to communicate with

Oh noes! Did I upset the collectivist?

It isn't that hard countrygun. Just type it really quickly again. Heck you would have been finished by now if you had just answered the question instead of kicking up dust.

Are federal marijuana laws unconstitutional?

Its a YES or NO answer.

You've now used about a half dozen responses to launch insults to create a smokescreen. It would have been a lot easier just to type "Yes" or "No"

Ruble Noon
12-23-2012, 10:07
~ "We tried to warn you" ~

:agree:

We tried to warn you that Romney wouldn't win, remember?

Ruble Noon
12-23-2012, 10:12
Except they are.

Romney committed that he wouldn't touch em.

Holder said an AWB was still desirable. Obama had it in his plans all along.

Romney sounded like a guy who had learned his lesson.

Romney said a lot of things, he was for abortion, he was against it. He was for Tarp, he was against it. He was for gun control, he was against it.

There was a clear choice for protecting our rights in this election and you guys rejected it.

Cavalry Doc
12-23-2012, 10:46
Romney said a lot of things, he was for abortion, he was against it. He was for Tarp, he was against it. He was for gun control, he was against it.

There was a clear choice for protecting our rights in this election and you guys rejected it.

Congrats on your idealistic actions. I'm sure we can all be proud of you for your rigid adherence. Luckily, there is no reason to blame you Barry's win, as all the other candidates and write in's combined didn't come close to the margin of victory. Had every single Romney vote been given magically to GJ, Barry would still have won.

I will agree that Mittens was a terrible candidate. Most of us here did not vote for him in the primary, and were pragmatic in the General.

Both of our efforts were futile. Oh well. :dunno:


It's interesting that you keep blaming us, and not the candidate. Doesn't he get any blame for the effectiveness of his campaign?? Doesn't Barry get any blame for lying so well? How about the MSM for giving Barry cover?


This fixation of yours is not logical.

Ruble Noon
12-23-2012, 10:49
Congrats on your idealistic actions. I'm sure we can all be proud of you for your rigid adherence. Luckily, there is no reason to blame you Barry's win, as all the other candidates and write in's combined didn't come close to the margin of victory. Had every single Romney vote been given magically to GJ, Barry would still have won.

I will agree that Mittens was a terrible candidate. Most of us here did not vote for him in the primary, and were pragmatic in the General.

Both of our efforts were futile. Oh well. :dunno:


It's interesting that you keep blaming us, and not the candidate. Doesn't he get any blame for the effectiveness of his campaign??


This fixation of yours is not logical.

Hey, I voted for Romney against my better judgement.

Cavalry Doc
12-23-2012, 10:52
Hey, I voted for Romney against my better judgement.

Wow, Maybe I am way off there then. Who is this guy that all of us here rejected then?

certifiedfunds
12-23-2012, 10:58
We may actually be in a better position with Obama as president.

If Romney was president and he said he wanted "reasonable new gun laws to prevent violence" as the de facto party leader the Republican congress would give him what he wanted. The democrats would only bicker about it not being extreme enough.

Cavalry Doc
12-23-2012, 11:09
We may actually be in a better position with Obama as president.

If Romney was president and he said he wanted "reasonable new gun laws to prevent violence" as the de facto party leader the Republican congress would give him what he wanted. The democrats would only bicker about it not being extreme enough.

CF,

Hate to part ways with you on this, but you completely missed the dynamic of a first termer vs. a more flexible second termer.

countrygun
12-23-2012, 13:25
We tried to warn you that Romney wouldn't win, remember?

He came very close and a lot closer than Ron Paul did.

With no more votes that the Libertarian party got, they wouldn't have pulled enough votes from Obama.

FLIPPER 348
12-23-2012, 13:34
Mittens never had a chance.

NorthernAlpine
12-23-2012, 13:43
It wouldn't matter if Charlton Heston was the Prez, the masses will want to see some kind of action from DC crowd to feign order.

certifiedfunds
12-23-2012, 13:46
He came very close and a lot closer than Ron Paul did.

With no more votes that the Libertarian party got, they wouldn't have pulled enough votes from Obama.

Are federal marijuan laws constitutional?

jlavallee
12-23-2012, 14:25
It wouldn't matter if Charlton Heston was the Prez, the masses will want to see some kind of action from DC crowd to feign order.

Because the statists have sold it so. Even the NRA suggested an armed guard at every school so no matter which way you go, more government. Kind of like the Dems and the GOP party folks.

A real logical statement calling for the lifting of "gun free" zones and options for schools because while tragic, the losses are small compared to other causes of death for children. Nope, to hell with reason... let's keep selling the hysteria.

There was a clear choice to break from this hysteria in the GOP this year but the bible thumpers can't accept leaving anyone else alone any more than the progressives can.

oh, and for certifiedfunds...The reason countrygun won't respond is obvious in that he wants it both ways and knows he can't say yes or no without making a Romney of himself. You know it, I know it and he knows it but you know how believers are with the hands over their ears singing la, la, la, la, la, la.

countrygun
12-23-2012, 14:36
Are federal marijuan laws constitutional?

Despite your fetish on the issue, if you can read you will find I already gave an opinion, the fact that you can't read what I wrote or lack the comprehension skills isn't my problem and I refuse to enable you ignorance by spoon feeding you the answer.

Since the Supreme Court is Constitutionally established as the arbiter of what is, or is not, "Constitutional", one must say that to believe in the Constitution and any of it's parts it must be supported in the whole. Unless you can get the Supreme Court to rule itself Unconstitutional.

Ergo, their rulings stand,

to wit:

Gonzales v. Raich (previously Ashcroft v. Raich),

545 U.S. 1 (2005), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court ruling that under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, the United States Congress may criminalize the production and use of home-grown cannabis even where states approve its use for medicinal purposes.


Again, get the SCOTUS to declare it's own ruling unconstitutional, and we'll talk.

Now if one wants to debate if that can be applied to commercial growing one only has to look to alcohol Prohibition to realize, that while it was repealed, it was never declared "Unconstitutional"

Now to tie this back to the topic of the thread (rather neatly I think)

The folks of Washington and Colorado proved exactly what I thought about the interests of the dopers. While they voted to legalize by State law, they struck no blow for freedom or State's Rights, indeed the opposite. Paul Ryan had said that he thought it a States Rights issue and they rejected the Republicans in favor of Obama who is going to force an unwanted health care program on the States. He has shown no respect for States in his dealings with Arizona, in a "trickle-down" Government style.

Washington and Colorado weren't concerned with the political statement they COULD have made (by not voting for the biggest Government spender and grower, they just wanted to get high.

certifiedfunds
12-23-2012, 15:04
Despite your fetish on the issue, if you can read you will find I already gave an opinion, the fact that you can't read what I wrote or lack the comprehension skills isn't my problem and I refuse to enable you ignorance by spoon feeding you the answer.

Since the Supreme Court is Constitutionally established as the arbiter of what is, or is not, "Constitutional", one must say that to believe in the Constitution and any of it's parts it must be supported in the whole. Unless you can get the Supreme Court to rule itself Unconstitutional.

Ergo, their rulings stand,

to wit:

Gonzales v. Raich (previously Ashcroft v. Raich),

545 U.S. 1 (2005), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court ruling that under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, the United States Congress may criminalize the production and use of home-grown cannabis even where states approve its use for medicinal purposes.


Again, get the SCOTUS to declare it's own ruling unconstitutional, and we'll talk.

Now if one wants to debate if that can be applied to commercial growing one only has to look to alcohol Prohibition to realize, that while it was repealed, it was never declared "Unconstitutional"

Now to tie this back to the topic of the thread (rather neatly I think)

The folks of Washington and Colorado proved exactly what I thought about the interests of the dopers. While they voted to legalize by State law, they struck no blow for freedom or State's Rights, indeed the opposite. Paul Ryan had said that he thought it a States Rights issue and they rejected the Republicans in favor of Obama who is going to force an unwanted health care program on the States. He has shown no respect for States in his dealings with Arizona, in a "trickle-down" Government style.

Washington and Colorado weren't concerned with the political statement they COULD have made (by not voting for the biggest Government spender and grower, they just wanted to get high.

So its a yes or no answer. What say you?

YES OR NO?

Constitutional or Unconstitutional ?

Or do you subscribe to the progressive interpretation of the commerce clause?

I'm really, really interested in your opinion. I know how real conservatives view it. How do YOU view it?

Why are you so hesitant to answer succinctly?

countrygun
12-23-2012, 15:10
So its a yes or no answer. What say you?

YES OR NO?

Constitutional or Unconstitutional ?

Or do you subscribe to the progressive interpretation of the commerce clause?

I'm really, really interested in your opinion. I know how real conservatives view it. How do YOU view it?

Why are you so hesitant to answer succinctly?



Sorry I am referring to the facts as they exist. I know you don't like them, but I think I have answered your stupid off the topic question to the extent that I feel you deserve. It's called "reality", try it sometime.

certifiedfunds
12-23-2012, 15:15
Sorry I am referring to the facts as they exist. I know you don't like them, but I think I have answered your stupid off the topic question to the extent that I feel you deserve. It's called "reality", try it sometime.

Yes or No?

Constitutional or Unconstitutional ?

Your twisting and squirming to avoid answering this question is very telling.

It wasn't "off topic" when I started asking you several pages back.

certifiedfunds
12-24-2012, 22:13
countrygun - in the spirit of Christmas I'll give you a pass. You've clearly avoided answering this simple question for several pages now. I suspect it makes you uncomfortable for any myriad of reasons.

Anyhow, forget about it and have a merry Christmas.

Gunhaver
12-25-2012, 06:02
Dang. I was sure he would crack and give an answer any time now.

GAFinch
12-25-2012, 07:55
We tried to warn you that Romney wouldn't win, remember?

I'll admit I gave up and shut down my struggling business as soon as I found out he hired a couple of McCain's campaign advisors. He did at least come within the margin of error (voting irregularities in swing states). Oh well, all we can do now is prepare for the upcoming collapse/crisis phase of the ongoing fundamental transformation.

countrygun
12-25-2012, 13:20
countrygun - in the spirit of Christmas I'll give you a pass. You've clearly avoided answering this simple question for several pages now. I suspect it makes you uncomfortable for any myriad of reasons.

Anyhow, forget about it and have a merry Christmas.

Oh I am having fun, I gave an answer and you are still making an ass out of yourself because you can't read and comprehend. What's even better is that you have drug the morally corrupt, admitted liar "gunhaver" in with you (if you don't believe me, ask him for a resume'). Birds of a feather actually.

tnhawk
12-25-2012, 13:35
Keep trying to convince yourself that you aren't part of the problem here.

That's the liberal way - blame some one else.

certifiedfunds
12-25-2012, 22:44
Oh I am having fun, I gave an answer and you are still making an ass out of yourself because you can't read and comprehend. What's even better is that you have drug the morally corrupt, admitted liar "gunhaver" in with you (if you don't believe me, ask him for a resume'). Birds of a feather actually.

It would seem that instead of lashing out with these rants you could just type a simple one word answer.

In your opinion are federal marijuana laws constitutional?

Yes

or

No

Noles26
12-25-2012, 23:28
Romney is the worst kind of politician. He doesn't have a stance on anything, he jumps all over the place and backs whatever is popular at the time.

If his opponent is for something, he's against.

The Republicans don't have a clue. Need proof? Your candidate was morman, a MULTI millionaire, head of Bain and Co. and the Gov and one of the most liberal states in the USA.

NOT TO MENTION HE'S A GROWN MAN WHO TRULY BELIEVES HIS UNDERWEAR IS MAGIC !! DOES THAT NOT RING ANY BELLS??????!!!!!!


And lets not make any ASSUMPTIONS of what Romney's plans for Guns were : http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/state-laws/massachusetts.aspx

Mass Gun laws are horrible.

Let's not forget where Romney made his fortune = Bain and Co. (Have you actually READ up on this company? They just scream PATRIOTIC!)

So please, use FACTS not assumptions or the Fox News weekly analysis of the current administration to back your statements.

series1811
12-26-2012, 07:28
It would seem that instead of lashing out with these rants you could just type a simple one word answer.

In your opinion are federal marijuana laws constitutional?

Yes

or

No

I'll answer.

Yes.

Under our system, what the constituion means is not decided by individuals other than the Supreme Court Justices. That is often inconvienent for me and everyone else. But, that is the way we do it, and I agree.

certifiedfunds
12-26-2012, 07:41
I'll answer.

Yes.

Under our system, what the constituion means is not decided by individuals other than the Supreme Court Justices. That is often inconvienent for me and everyone else. But, that is the way we do it, and I agree.

countrygun - see how easy it is? Now why did you tap dance for 6 or 7 pages instead of just answering?

Federal marijuana laws and Obamacare both Constitiutional and raising grain to feed your hogs is Interstate Commerce.